Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 6(4): 107-112, 2014
ISSN: 2041-3238, e-ISSN: 2041-3246
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2014
Submitted: September 16, 2013
Accepted: October 19, 2013
Published: September 25, 2014
The Efficacy of Agriculture-led Development in Zimbabwe: A Theoretical Review
Mutami Cephas
Department of Rural and Urban Development, Great Zimbabwe University, P.O. Box 1235,
Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Abstract: This study looks at the theoretical proposition of an agriculture led development in the post-2000
Zimbabwe. The paper traces the theoretical foundations of development in developing countries and revisit critical
role of agriculture in Zimbabwe. By engaging emerging literature on development and envisaging the opportunities
being presented by the current development paradigm, the paper posit Zimbabwe’s future development as one which
should be on agriculture particularly smallholder farmers in cash crops. The rectification of the policy discord in the
agriculture sector is the hallmark of this study.
Keywords: Agriculture, rural development, smallholder, subsistence and commercial agriculture
should follow the success stories of developed
countries,
albeit
a
dynamic
socio-economic
environment. Zimbabwe is no exception as the colonial
government established rural reserves where indigenous
populations were crowded in low resource arid regions
like Gwayi and Shanghai. This development strategy
was conceived to depose the majority Africans of
productive land and thereby creating conditions of food
insecurity within rural reserves which would then force
households to seek employment particularly in the
urban industries and to some extent commercial
agriculture.
Colonial and post-colonial development process in
Zimbabwe has some patently influential narratives
which continue to spur or constraint rural development.
It is expedient that an exposition of the colonial rural
development policies be provided here, particularly on
how classical development theorists like Lewis and
Ricardo shaped the concept of development and nation
building.
The reality of the rural economy in both colonial
and post-colonial Zimbabwe points to a dual economy
driven by both agriculture and urban industries as the
backbone of the nation state. The dual economy as
expounded by Lewis (1954) seek to construct a
“classical framework to solve the problems of
distribution, accumulation and growth” by depicting
two economic sectors namely subsistence and capitalist
sectors which he conceive as key drivers in the
development process. This is true to Zimbabwe during
the period 1958 to 1980 when the country has distinctly
two economic sectors, rural and urban clearly marked
by their racial and capital accumulation disposition. It is
in this regard that a careful analysis of the dual
economy model of development which was advanced in
1954 by Lewis be reconsidered in order to trace early
policy implications of colonial development in
Zimbabwe.
INTRODUCTION
Zimbabwe is at cross roads today. Industrial
growth has receded, with 80% of the country’s
manufacturing sector closing shop or scaling down
production with even a far more number operating at
40% of their capacity. This categorically puts an
industrial led development strategy on the back foot.
The other sectors of mining and tourism though have
greater potential to stimulate development maybe
entangled with inconsistencies investments laws and the
isolationist policies of the western countries. This
leaves agriculture as the only other viable option to
pursue for development. Thus, even if these other
sectors were experiencing growth, would that growth be
broad based, distributive particularly to the rural areas
where over 60% of Zimbabweans live and work. Thus
it has become increasing clear that any effort to fight
poverty and stimulate sustainable development in
Zimbabwe ought to be pragmatic and inclusive to the
poor who are basically farmers.
This study begins by tracing the development
history of Zimbabwe interlocking it with the theoretical
intrusions of dualism, integrated development and the
liberalization thrust of the 1990s. The further looks at
the recent contributions on the role of agriculture for
national development hinged on the World
Development Report of 2009 which put agriculture on
the world radar again. The further juxtaposes this kind
of development with the current policy conditions in
Zimbabwe.
Dualism and rural development in Zimbabwe: As a
pioneer classical development economist after the
World War II, Lewis’s work resonated well to western
colonial governments particularly in Africa who
conceived African development process as one which
107
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 6(4): 107-112, 2014
In conceiving the dual sector model, Lewis (1954)
denotes an economy which has subsistence and capital
sectors. This sectorial view is qualified by excluding
western countries and other developed countries where
labour has proven to be scarce due to the advanced
stages of development in the countries and areas where
the population appears to be too small for the resources
available. The chief assumption which Lewis (1954)
makes is the unlimited supply of labor particularly in
countries where the population is so large relative to
capital and natural resources and marginal productivity
of labour is zero or negligible. The economic conditions
in colonial Zimbabwe point to the validity of Lewis’s
assumption on unlimited supply of labour. This is
however subject to debate as to what created the excess
labour as during pre-colonial period African farmers
were engaged in productive farming with some trade
activities happening particularly in central and southern
Zimbabwe. It becomes clear that the colonial
government created conditions to generate excess
labour through a cocktail of impoverishing measures.
This was done for example through dispossessing
Africans of fertile and productive land and relocating
them in semi-arid and arid regions where climatic and
soil conditions inhibit productive agriculture. In
colonial Zimbabwe the country was divided into five
natural regions and Africans were resettled in Natural
Region 4 and 5 which were the driest areas in the
country. This impoverishing policy made sure that there
will be unlimited supply of labor for the capitalist
sector where even wage level is kept just at the
minimum at which farmers can earn (Fei and Ranis,
1964).
The colonial government achieved this through
levying punitive taxes upon the African populace and
coercing them out of their land and as forced laborers in
farms and mines. This has an important dimension to
rural development. Keeping wages in the capitalist
sector low and maintaining a subsistence agriculture
which is not enough for the whole household will
perpetuate poverty and vulnerability especially when
there is collusion between the capitalist and political
authorities as agriculture extension work is hamstrung
and there will be no technology transfers.
It is expedient to point out that the colonial
government in Zimbabwe was more interested in
keeping total economic and socio-political control of
Africans to further the interest of the capitalists in both
cities and commercial agriculture than it was to rural
development. It is interesting to note that in 1965 when
the colonial government of Ian Smith declared a
Unilateral Declaration of Independent (UDI) from
Britain, this impoverishment policy intensified with
some protrusions even in commodity pricing where the
same crop would be priced differently depending on the
racial and class structures.
In post independence Zimbabwe, the influences of
the dual sector model in development process is
camouflaged by the nationalist and populist policies but
a closer analysis reflect the same basic tenets of the
model as envisaged by Lewis. It is thus of paramount to
decipher such policy dilemmas and how this dual model
has been influencing rural development. Although the
policies of post-independent Zimbabwe sought to
dismantle the tenets of the dualistic economic
philosophy, the reality shows otherwise. The policies
and programmes implemented by the government of
Zimbabwe show a myriad of policy inconsistencies
which perpetuated the disenfranchisement of the rural
peasantry at the expense of the capitalist sector.
The focus of the government after independence
was to transfer polices and economic rights to the
peasants and lower the wealth gap with their urban
counterparts. This was done to dismantle the core of
class society previously championed by the white
settlers. Bird and Shepherd (2003) note that these rights
were not effectively transferred to the peasantry
particularly those in rural areas as the capitalist simply
embraced the new black bourgeoisie class. For instance
the decentralization policy of 1984 which was suppose
to give rural people more say over their development
process was a huge failure as most developments plans
of villagers were simply ignored or were not financially
supported by treasury.
Of much significance in the 1980s was the land
reform and agricultural policies which were geared
towards the communal areas so as spur regional
development. Though some scholars like Chitsike
(2002) view this initial land reform as a success, the
government itself admitted that it was not effective as
not adequate land was ever bought to suffice the
productive need of peasant farmers. The programme did
not change the demographic spatial characterizes of
Zimbabwe with over 60% of the population still
remaining in arid communal lands. Though agriculture
extension work did improve during this period, the
market huddles particularly for cereal crop did not
allow the creation and sustenance of surplus within the
rural communities. The monopoly of state agricultural
marketing agencies later proved a huge cost to peasants
as they were riddled with corrupting and began setting
price ceili9ngs so as to safeguard the food security of
urban population. This view is corroborated by
Chattopadhyay (2000) who analyzed the performance
and effectiveness of the Grain Marketing Board (GMB)
which later negatively affected the viability of cereal
farming particularly maize among the rural peasantry.
In the 1990s the government implemented the
structural adjustment policy which has profound effects
on the agricultural sector particularly the small scale
farmers who are virtually peasants. The policy thrust of
the reform agenda were:
108
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 6(4): 107-112, 2014
•
•
•
•
Dorward et al. (2010) posit a number of questions
on the feasibility of agricultural growth led
development. Though Dorward et al. (2010) concede
that agricultural growth is a fundamental pre-requisite
to wide spread poverty reduction, it must clearly show
the linkages between agriculture, rural economy and
poverty reduction. This entails dissecting the nature of
economic growth within countries, pointing to its
magnitude and source, that is whether industrial or
agricultural and then clearly following the trickling
benefits to rural people and the level of impact of such
growth to poverty. The grand question would be
whether direct agriculture growth would lead to
sufficient development and if it is the best possible
creating such development.
Such questions may be answered quite clearly by
the Green Revolutions in Asia, where it has been
proved that ‘’agriculture can be transformed from a
traditional sector to a modern sector ‘’ (Dorward et al.,
2010). In these Asian countries, agriculture has shown
potential to stimulate broad based economic growth and
development. Of course, it may be argued that
economic growth may not translate to development,
worse still from agricultural growth. Proponents of
agriculture posit that the positive impact of agriculture
growth leading to rural development was found to be
strongest in agrarian economies in their initial stages of
development and where small farms dominate such
agriculture (Rosegrant and Harzell, 2000).
To prescribe agriculture growth strategy, because
of the Asian countries without looking at the context of
these countries will be missing the point. African
development may require different strategies, analysis
and policy thrusts. That is if we take into cognisance
the continent’s historical development which has not
been responding to development stimulus as evidenced
by the minute growth rate of the 1960s and 1970s (Diao
and Pratt, 2006). Therefore the grand questions would
be whether agriculture growth is feasible in Africa and
whether such growth would lead to development and
whether that kind of development would reduce
poverty, particularly to the continent’s 80% people who
live in rural areas. Birdsall et al. (1995) note that, “to
significantly reduce poverty it would be necessary to
promote shared growth”.
The issue of “shared growth’’ which Birdsall et al.
(1995) are prescribing here is of immense importance to
Africa particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. In South
Africa, though the country has witnessed successive
economic growth of above 5% for the last 5 years,
inequality has also been increasing over the years.
Obviously this is not the kind of “shared growth” that
Africa needs today. Diao et al. (2010) note that in many
African countries it is perhaps agriculture which has the
type of scale and growth linkages which could
significantly influence aggregate growth and spur broad
based development.
“Reduction of direct state involvement in the
production, distribution and marketing of
agricultural inputs and commodities
Removal of subsidies on agricultural inputs and
credit
Liberalization of export and import trade
Privatization of agricultural marketing” (Villanger,
2003)
The implementation of these polices resulted in a
number of challenges particularly to rural communities.
Scholars note the SAP policies led to widespread food
insecurity and in some cases 30% of children fewer
than five were having malnutrition (Villanger, 2003).
This has been attributed to the rolling back of
government input schemes and agricultural support
services. The general liberation policy push meant that
the rural subsistence sector was curtailed while at the
same time the capitalist elite farmers and urban
enterprises became active thus further disempowering
the rural peasantry. This market based agricultural
production shifted focus from staple production to cash
cropping which has a significant effect to the food
security of the nation. Villanger (2003) further revealed
that at the national level, “Zimbabwe, since the
privatization of its marketing boards and the
liberalization and deregulation of the agricultural
sector, has been transformed, from a country that met
all its domestic food needs and still had enough maize
and wheat to export, to one that must import food from
South Africa, Kenya and Mozambique”.
The experiences of post 2000 Zimbabwe in rural
development shows a cocktail of various theoretical
narratives which may warrant a closer interrogation
particularly to the effects to rural development. It
suffices to point out here that Zimbabwe implemented a
wide land reform program which was followed by an
economic recession.
Agriculture-led
development-the
theoretical
debates: The dual sector has shown not to spur broad
based development in particular to the rural poor who
are always relegated to poverty miseries. In fact Lewis
(1954) model does not envisage a process of
development which benefits the poor nor push them out
of poverty. Its main focus is to initiate development to
the capitalist sector. Poor rural citizens are supposed to
benefit through wages and employment opportunities in
the modern sector, such benefit is peripheral and may
not necessarily lead to above subsistence wage levels.
This dissatisfaction with the dual model
particularly its relegation of the agricultural sector to
the fringes of development process has led to serious
interrogation on the alternative pathways of
development. Agriculture led development appear to
have succeeded to provide holistic answers to rural
poverty (World Bank, 2000).
109
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 6(4): 107-112, 2014
the inadequate investments and policies that are
historically biased against agriculture (World Bank,
2000; Diao et al., 2010). Besides, there are a few
alternatives to agriculture when Africa’s small industry
is taken into account. This is true to Zimbabwe where
agriculture contributes about 40% of the GDP and 60%
of the total raw materials for industry (Bautista et al.,
2002). Industrial growth in Zimbabwe is currently
hamstrung as most companies are operation below half
their capacities. Thus growth in the sector both in the
short and medium run is unlikely to be significant to
reduce poverty. Using empirical evidence from
Ethiopia, Diao and Pratt (2006) conclude that if
Ethiopia is lower its poverty prevalence from 44.4% (in
2006) to 28% in 2015 it has to follow a development
pathway which emphasize cereal and staple food
production which is coupled by massive infrastructure
and market investments. This supports the view that if
Africa is to be developed, it has to follow a broad based
agricultural approach.
The superiority of agriculture development in
Africa is now on the development radar again. Interest
in agriculture has been rekindled by the World
Development Report for 2008 (World Bank, 2000)
which prescribe investments in agriculture to reduce
poverty using various pathways in recognition of the
different contexts of the world. The Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD,
2006) views agriculture development as an effective
strategy of reducing poverty through four pathways
namely:
The efficacy of agriculture led development in
Africa requires both theoretical and empirical evidence
that is if concrete policy measures are to be realized.
Theoretical arguments for agriculture led development
date back to the 1960s when Johnson and Mellor (1961)
detailed economic benefits of agriculture particularly in
early economic development stages in agrarian
dominated economies. These benefits include balance
of payments through export earnings, labour and capital
generation increased domestic demand for products of
agriculture and other growth sectors. In the early 1960s,
agricultural growth would lead to population growth
which will lead to high demand of agricultural products
and improve income elasticity of the population. These
conditions are ideal for economic growth and probably
for reducing poverty.
Dorward et al. (2010) and Diao and Pratt (2006)
offer insightful narratives on agricultural growth. They
argue that farm activities are more likely to offer
opportunities for broadly based expansion with tradable
activities with direct and indirect income and
employment opportunities. It is clear here, that such
growth in African countries like Zimbabwe where
about 80% of the population are unemployed, then any
form of intervention which may have direct
employment benefits is welcome. Other scholars argue
that even if the growth is in non-tradable, it would have
much impact on reducing poverty provided such nontradable are widely consumed as staple food. Diao et al.
(2010) argue that agricultural pro-poor and broad based
than industry export oriented growth.
Empirical evidence for agricultural led growth is
somewhat disappointing except that they point to huge
policy bias and neglect to the sector. Since the 1980s
agricultural growth has become slow and sometimes
negative (Dorward and Morrison, 2000; FAO, 2002;
World Bank, 2006). The World Bank (2006) notes that
agricultural growth was slow during the period 1965
to1998 than growth of the agricultural labour force.
Dorward et al. (2010) suggest that since 1980s there
was a slight increase in cereal production attributed to
yield increase as opposed to the increase in cereal
hectarage. Thus critics of agricultural development
(Ellis, 1999, 2000; Bryceson, 2001;Collier, 2002) argue
that such empirical evidence showing the weak
[performance of agriculture reflects the weak institution
in rural development and the unfavorable agroecological conditions of most sub-Saharan African
countries. Collier (2002) further emphasize that the
large size of the agriculture sector and its failed
performance as one of its chief indicator for failure.
Such criticism of agriculture come from the 1980s
Washington Consensus which views agriculture as just
any other economic sector, albeit one which often
suffer ‘negative protection’ in the form of repressed
prices and incentives to farmers (Krueger et al., 1991).
However proponents of agriculture for development
posit that the poor performance of agriculture reflects
•
•
•
•
By raising farm incomes thereby benefiting the
many farmers who live in poverty
By creating employment on farms given
agriculture tends to employ more workers per unit
output than other sectors
By stimulating the rural non-farm economy
through linkages in both production and
consumption systems
By pushing down the prices of staple foods to the
benefit of the many poor who are net food buyers
even in rural areas, (2006)
However it must be pointed out that agriculture
today is facing many challenges which were not
prevalent during the Green Revolutions in Asia.
Understanding the kind of strategy for agriculture
whether it be small scale or large scale, or cereal based
or export based agriculture led growth requires prompt
review of challenges and difficulties that agriculture
faces today at the local and global scale. These
challenges are multifaceted and appear to be three
dimensional as local conditions, policy conditions and
global conditions. An analysis of these conditions may
require contextual issues hence the debate may be
narrowed to Zimbabwe whose characteristics are
similar to other African countries.
110
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 6(4): 107-112, 2014
Bird, K. and A. Shepherd, 2003. Livelihood and
chronic poverty in semi-arid Zimbabwe. World
Dev., 31(3): 591-610.
Birdsall, N., D. Ross and R. Sabot, 1995. Inequality and
growth reconsidered, lessons from East Asia.
World Bank Econ. Rev., 9(3): 477-508.
Bryceson, F.D., 2001. The scramble in Africa:
Reorienting rural livelihoods. World Dev., 30(5):
725-739.
Chattopadhyay, R., 2000. Zimbabwe: Structural
adjustment, destitution and food insecurity. Rev.
Afr. Polit. Econ., 84: 307-316.
Chitsike, F., 2002. A critical analysis of the land reform
programme of Zimbabwe. Proceeding of the 2nd
FIG Regional Conference. Marrakech, Morocco.
Collier, P., 2002. Primary commodity dependency and
Africa’s future. In: Pleskovic, B. (Ed.), Proceeding
of the Annual World Conference and Development
Economic. World Bank, Washington, DC,
December 29-30.
Diao, X. and A.N. Pratt, 2006. Growth options and
poverty reduction in Ethiopia: An economy wide
model analysis. Food Policy, 32: 205-222.
Diao, X., P. Hazell and J. Thurlow, 2010. The role of
agriculture in African development. World Dev.,
38(10): 1375-1383.
Dorward, A. and J. Morrison, 2000. The Agricultural
Development Experience of the Past 30 Years:
Lessons for LDCs. Imperial College at Wye, FAO,
London.
Dorward, A., J. Kydd, J. Morrison and I. Urey, 2010. A
policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural growth.
World Dev., 32(1): 73-89.
Ellis, F., 1999. Rural Livelihood Diversity in
Developing Countries: Evidence and Policy
Implications. Natural Resource Perspectives No.
40, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihood Diversity in
Developing Countries: Analysis, Policy, Methods.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
FAO, 2002. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture
Organization, United Nations, Rome.
Fei, J.C.H. and G. Ranis, 1964. Development of the
Labour Surplus Economy: Theory and Policy.
Richard A. and Iriwin Inc., Homewood, Illinois.
Johnson, D.G. and J.W. Mellor, 1961. The role of
agriculture in economic development. Am. Econ.
Rev., 51(4): 566-593.
Krueger, A., M. Schiff and A. Valdés, 1991. The
Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing Policy.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
London.
Lewis, A., 1954. Economic development with unlimited
supply of labour. Manch. Sch. Econ. Soc., 22(2):
139-191.
OECD, 2006. Producer and Consumer Support
Estimates,
OECD
Database
1986-2005.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Paris.
The local conditions for agriculture in Zimbabwe
depend on whether it is commercial or subsistence and
whether it in communal or resettled areas. It is in the
communal areas where there is a confluence of
difficulties and where the majority of the poorest live.
The communal areas continue to hold over 60% of the
country’s population yet they have the poorest
geological and agro-ecological conditions, (Chitsike,
2002). These natural conditions may require intensive
use of fertilizers if agriculture growth is to be achieved.
The current state of policy conditions in rural
Zimbabwe is precarious. The prevailing dollarization
monetary policy resulted in the State rolling back most
of its agricultural support programmes such as input
facilities, marketing financing and infrastructure. The
sole State buyer of cereals, Grain Marketing Board
(GMB) is in arrears in terms of payments to farmers,
meaning farmers’ cash flow has been heavily disrupted.
Thus this state of bankruptcy of the central government
mean no meaningful state intervention programmes
particularly to support agriculture in rural areas can be
effectively pursued.
Zimbabwean agriculture today faces a plethora of
global challenges. The global markets for agricultural
produce have declined during the last decade albeit
some price hikes in 2007/8 (World Bank, 2000). The
producer prices of cereals on the international markets
have declined that only the heavily subsidized farmers
of Europe and USA are making huge profits. Moreover
the ‘dumping’ of food products on the developing
countries’ markets threatening the local viability of
farmers. In Zimbabwe the dumping of Brazilian poultry
products has led to the closure of most chicken
processors. This provide a continual threat to
Zimbabwe’ development.
CONCLUSION
It is expedient that if agriculture is to result in
economic growth and reduce poverty, there is need to
tailor it to suit the needs of the poorest and the majority.
This calls for a strategy of whether the agricultural
development has to follow small scale or large scale
orthodoxies. Despite the general understanding on the
role of agriculture in development as reflected by the
World Bank (2000), there appear to be two varying
strands of debate of smallholder agriculture versus large
scale commercial agriculture and agriculture and nonfarm strategies for development.
REFERENCES
Bautista, R.M., M. Thomas, K. Muir-Leresche and H.
Lofgren, 2002. Macroeconomic policy reforms and
agriculture: Towards equitable growth in
Zimbabwe. Research Report No. 128, International
Food Research Institute, Washington, DC.
111
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 6(4): 107-112, 2014
Rosegrant, M.W. and P. Harzell, 2000. Transforming
the Rural Asian Economy: The Unfinished
Revolution. Oxford University Press, Hong Kong.
Villanger, E., 2003. The SAPRIN report: An
assessment of the empirical analysis supporting
main conclusions. CMI Working Paper No. 2003:3,
Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, pp: 19.
World Bank, 2000. Agriculture for development. World
Development Report 2008, World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
World Bank, 2006. World Development Indicators.
World Bank, Washington, DC.
112